Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Holds Sir Ganga Ram Hospital And Doctors Liable For Medical Negligence In Patient's Death

Brief Facts of the Case:

The case pertains to the unfortunate events surrounding the treatment and subsequent demise of the Complainant's wife, who was admitted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, for medical care. The Complainant's wife, referred to as the patient, was initially admitted on 12th July 2014, diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma, and underwent treatment under the supervision of Dr. Shyam Aggarwal.

Subsequently, the patient was admitted again on 21st February 2015, where she underwent a splenectomy procedure, performed by Dr. Sudhir Kalhan, among others. The Complainant was informed that the surgery was successful, and the spleen had been removed from the patient's body. However, when the Complainant requested to see the specimen of the removed spleen, Dr. Sudhir Kalhan allegedly refused, claiming it was not the Complainant's concern.

Tragically, the patient's health deteriorated, and she was readmitted to the hospital on 8th June 2015 with complaints of dehydration and associated symptoms. Despite medical treatment, the patient succumbed to her ailments on 18th June 2015.

Following the patient's demise, the Complainant made several attempts to obtain complete medical records and documents from the hospital, including the discharge summary, total bills, ultrasound films, and reports related to the spleen specimen. However, the hospital allegedly denied access to these documents, prompting the Complainant to seek intervention from various authorities, including the Directorate General of Health Services, Delhi Medical Council, and the Chief Minister's Office.

Additionally, the Complainant raised concerns regarding the discrepancy between medical reports, notably an ultrasound report indicating the spleen's normal size and texture, contrary to the earlier claim of its removal through splenectomy. Furthermore, the absence of CCTV footage of the surgical procedure raised suspicions regarding the transparency and accuracy of the treatment provided.

In response to the Complainant's allegations, the Opposite Parties maintained that they provided standard treatment and care to the patient, denying any wrongdoing on their part. However, the court found discrepancies in the medical records and treatment outcomes, which led to doubts regarding the Opposite Parties' claims.

Findings of the Commission:

After thorough examination of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, the commission noted significant disparities between the medical records and the treatment outcomes. Specifically, the ultrasound report indicated the spleen to be intact despite a charged procedure for splenectomy. This inconsistency raised doubts regarding the accuracy of the diagnosis and subsequent treatment provided by the Opposite Parties.

And The commission expressed concern over the alleged mishandling of biomedical waste, particularly regarding the disposal of the removed spleen without affording the Complainant an opportunity to inspect it. This raised questions about the transparency and accountability of the medical practitioners involved.

The commission noted the absence of CCTV footage pertaining to the surgical procedure, which further exacerbated suspicions surrounding the actions of the medical practitioners. This lack of documentation raised concerns about the adherence to established protocols and standards of care.

Drawing upon legal principles, the commission invoked the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, interpreting the circumstances of the case as indicative of potential negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. This legal doctrine, which presumes negligence based on evident facts, served as a cornerstone for inferring lapses in the duty of care owed by the medical practitioners to the patient.

The commission emphasized the overarching duty of care incumbent upon medical professionals, stressing the importance of adhering to established standards and ethical guidelines in the provision of healthcare services. It underscored the gravity of medical negligence and its profound impact on patient well-being.

In light of the foregoing findings, the commission partly upheld the complaint filed by the Complainant. It directed the Opposite Parties to provide compensatory relief to the Complainant for the physical and mental suffering endured as a result of the alleged negligence.

The Opposite Parties, including Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and the medical practitioners involved, are directed to compensate the Complainant for the physical and mental agony endured by the patient, totaling Rs. 5,10,000. This amount includes Rs. 1,97,900, representing the charges for the surgical procedure performed.

Additionally, the Opposite Parties are ordered to pay Rs. 20,000 each to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony.

The Opposite Parties are further directed to reimburse the Complainant Rs. 15,000 each towards litigation charges.

The Opposite Parties are instructed to comply with the above directives within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which they shall be liable to pay the entire sum along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum until the actual realization of the amount.